> No. Using !x explicitly disallows the method call in context x, even if
> there is class one, or an AUTOLOAD, or a superclass one. The idea is that
> you can specify !r, and avoid the expensive fallbacks.
This just plain seems ludicrous to me. This definitely isn't something
having to do with
On Sun, Aug 27, 2000 at 10:31:05AM -0700, Nathan Wiger wrote:
> > The defined permissions are:
> >
> > '!', which forces the method call to fail, without further ado L<[5]>, and
> Isn't '!' the same as not specifying ':accessible', since the autoaccessor
> method therefore won't exist and eit
First off, I like the idea a lot. However, I think there is some
extraneous bloat in it:
> The defined permissions are:
>
> '!', which forces the method call to fail, without further ado L<[5]>, and
> '+', which makes the autoaccessor handle the call
> '~', which makes the autoaccess
On Sat, Aug 26, 2000 at 08:24:19PM -0500, Dave Rolsky wrote:
> This is an interesting idea. I would think that ideally it would be
> combined with pre-declared limited keyspace hashes (which we currently
> have in a semi-crippled way with pseudohashes).
This seems like a fairly orthagonal thing
On Sat, 26 Aug 2000, James Mastros wrote:
> This example shows how much easier it would have been to write the
> example on line 170 of perltoot.pod:
>
> package Person;
> use strict;
>
> ##
> ## the object constructor (simplis
It appears that the RFC Librarian doesn't work weekends, so I'm going to
post this directly. Hopefuly, it doesn't have any glaringly obvious errors...
=head1 TITLE
Automatic accessors for hash-based objects
=head1 VERSION
Maintainer: James Mastros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 25 Aug 2000
Vers
